On 19 May 2013 01:25, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 05/19/2013 02:09 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On 10 May 2013 15:17, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this is the issue about the signatures of the erase member functions of
>>> the
>>> sequence containers.
>>
>> This only does the erase()
On 05/19/2013 02:09 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 10 May 2013 15:17, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
this is the issue about the signatures of the erase member functions of the
sequence containers.
This only does the erase() functions, is there any reason not to do
the same for the insert() functions
On 10 May 2013 15:17, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is the issue about the signatures of the erase member functions of the
> sequence containers.
This only does the erase() functions, is there any reason not to do
the same for the insert() functions too, which was also changed by
N2350?
... I'm finishing testing the below.
Paolo.
Index: include/bits/stl_iterator.h
===
--- include/bits/stl_iterator.h (revision 198885)
+++ include/bits/stl_iterator.h (working copy)
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@
#include
#incl
Hi,
On 05/14/2013 03:41 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I'd forgotten about the existence of __const_pointer_cast etc. in
...
Me too ;) I resorted to it as a sort of temporary kludge.
I agree that in C++11 mode __normal_iterator::_M_const_cast should not
rely on the existence of a get() member on
On 14 May 2013 13:51, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 05/14/2013 02:40 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>> Then I suppose that the correct way to move forward to C++11 the
>> ext/pointer.h stuff would be adding a pointer_traits specialization for
>> those pointer-like types, which would also wrap the cast ope
On 05/14/2013 02:40 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Then I suppose that the correct way to move forward to C++11 the
ext/pointer.h stuff would be adding a pointer_traits specialization
for those pointer-like types, which would also wrap the cast
operations in pointer_to. Then, in __normal_iterator::_M
On 05/10/2013 04:17 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
this is the issue about the signatures of the erase member functions
of the sequence containers. Mostly rather straightfoward stuff within
the limits of the current infrastructure: the various _M_const_case
are normally simple enough, I only mention
Hi,
this is the issue about the signatures of the erase member functions of
the sequence containers. Mostly rather straightfoward stuff within the
limits of the current infrastructure: the various _M_const_case are
normally simple enough, I only mention the rather ugly std::vector one,
requir
